From the IGP:
If the identity of a card involved in reversing an action is unknown to one of the players (usually because it was drawn), a random card is chosen from the possible candidates. Actions that caused a player to learn the identity of cards at a specific location in the library are reversed by shuffling those cards into the random portion of the library unless they were subsequently drawn; cards being returned to the library as part of the backup should not be shuffled at that stage if their identity was known to only one player.

With the new IGP, drawing an illegal card when opponent has Narset out and no instantly objection is no longer HCE, but double GRV. So Remedy is no longer Thoughtseize-Fix, but backing up (if still possible) by putting a random card from the hand on top of the library.

My Question: Why isn’t the card (returned to the library as part of the backup) shuffle into the random portion of the library if the illegal drawn card wasn’t know to the drawing player? Is the gained information about the next draw considered less harmful then the possibility players could abuse this to get a free cycling a card at the cost of an Warning?

Thanks

Bernard Linster

The reason we put drawn cards on top of the library rather than shuffling them away is the same at both Regular and Comp REL, and doesn't have anything to do with Narset or the recent change. When backing up through a card draw that we don't know the identity of, we have to take a random card. If the card we choose is not the card that they drew illegally but rather is one that they have had in hand for a while, it would be extremely disruptive to shuffle that card away completely. We put it on the top of the library instead so that they will draw it again at their next opportunity.

Also note that we don't want the player abuse of a “card on top” backup to get rid of unwanted cards, and we usually don't perform this kind of backup if the player has a way to prevent themself from drawing that card again and draw a different card instead - for example cracking a fetchland and reshuffling, self-milling, etc.

Be very wary of taking any guidance about handling situations from the IPG when judging at regular. When at Regular, the JAR is king and the IPG might as well not exist.

I agree with Isaac on the logic of putting cards on top instead of shuffling, but would like to expand a little with an example to better illustrate the reasoning:

At FNM, suppose it is game two, and Arthur has kept a hand of Wrath of God and 6 lands because he knows Nadine has a bunch of big green monsters, so he knows Wrath of God is by far the best card in his deck. Every decision he made in the game is based around setting up this Wrath of God. On the turn he is planning to sweep Nadine's board, he accidentally draws 2 cards instead of 1 because his sleeves stick together. We want to take away a card at random to put him back to the right number of cards - pretend the Wrath of God is the card randomly selected.

If we shuffle that card away, the penalty is not too far from a Game Loss. This player has spent their whole game building around this key card, and now it's entirely gone.

If we put the card on top instead, the player gets the extra info of knowing what they're about to draw which is not great, but the game is going to play out much closer to the way it would have, if the error had not happened.

Edited Brook Gardner-Durbin (July 19, 2019 10:35:49 PM)